Police's Inability To Timely Serve Summons, Execute Coercive Processes Violates Right To Speedy Trial Of Accused: Allahabad High Court

In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that the failure of the state police to serve the summons and execute coercive processes issued by the court is affecting the fundamental rights of the accused and their right to obtain bail in a timely manner.

"Rights of the accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are being violated and fair administration of right of bail is being hampered as a consequence of these failures of the police department," the Court opined.

Here it may be noted that Sections 61, 62, 70, 72, 74, 78, etc of CrPC impose a Duty upon police authorities to serve the summons and execute other coercive measures like bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants issued by the courts in a time-bound manner.

The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot also emphasised that an "independent and effective" internal accountability system in the police force is the need of the hour for ensuring the service of summons, and execution of coercive processes in a time-bound framework.

The bench further added that the magnitude of the problem of absent witnesses and inadequacy of the response of the police to enforce summons and coercive measures exposes a systemic fault line that "threatens" the credibility of the justice delivery system.

"The inability of the police authorities to serve a summons and execute coercive measures issued by the learned trial courts in the specified time frame is an endemic problem and a major bottleneck in the criminal law process. This deficiency in functioning of the police results in absence of witnesses in courts and causes interminable delays in trials and strikes at the root of public faith in the justice delivery system," the bench remarked as it said that the police authorities cannot turn Nelson’s eye to departmental shortcomings and senior officials cannot evade responsibility.

In this regard, the Court has said that the appointment of nodal officers at various levels for the compelling appearance of witnesses may be an effective measure to deal with the crisis. However, the Court opined that this system would be fruitful only if the nodal officers were heads of the police at the respective levels.

The Court also suggested that such nodal officers should be empowered to coordinate with police forces at various levels be it District, Zone, State or inter-State.

Significantly, the Court has also proposed that the statutory obligation imposed upon the police authorities to compel the appearance of witnesses on orders of the courts should be incorporated in the charter of duties of the nodal officers to which they shall be accountable.

The performance of said officials is also liable to be evaluated on the said yardsticks and corrected by the department whenever deviations occur, the Court said.

The Court made these significant reflections while allowing the bail application of an accused as it noted that the Court has been witnessing the failure of the police to serve the summons and executive coercive processes, which is, in turn, affecting the rights of the accused seeking bail.

The Court also perused the status reports sent by the trial courts (in the bail matter) stating that the trial has been delayed as the police authorities did not serve summons and execute coercive measures in a timely manner to compel the appearance of the witnesses on the appointed date in the trial. 

Stressing that the constitutional liberty assured under Article 21 and the statutory right of bail of an undertrial prisoner are interconnected, the Court said that prolonged incarceration of accused persons due to delay in trials violates the fundamental liberties of the accused, especially when the trial is inordinately delayed for no fault of the accused.

The Court said that though there are provisions to deal with the police officers who fail to service summons or execute coercive processes, but such a course of action under the statute leads to a multiplicity of litigation and consumes precious judicial time.

In this regard, the Court said that the powers of the courts to draw criminal proceedings or even contempt proceedings against the erring police officials for their failing have to be supplemented by "effective departmental procedures delineating responsibility and fixing accountability in the police"

The Court added that the state is required to issue and consider the framing of rules for an efficacious system of accountability within the police department in this regard. Noting that the state has already been asked to do the needful in the issue, the Court has asked the authorities to examine the abovementioned aspects of the matter and accomplish the task with deep meticulousness and greatest promptitude.

"Failure of the police authorities and neglect of the State Government to acknowledge their statutory duties and constitutional obligations respectively will lead to miscarriage of justice. Prisoners spend long years in jail simply because the police authorities do not ensure the appearance of witnesses on a timely basis in defiance of orders passed by the trial courts. Failure of justice becomes more acute because many of the prisoners belong to marginalized sections of the society and are incapacitated by poverty and legal illiteracy," the Court remarked as it directed a copy of its order be sent to the DGP, Government of UP and Director, JTRI, Lucknow

Case title - Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288

Click Here To Read/Download Order